George Young: We got there in the end.
	Mr Speaker, you informed the House on Wednesday of the subjects for debate on the Queen’s Speech. The business for next week will be:
	Monday 14 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subject will be business and economy.
	Tuesday 15 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subject will be foreign affairs and international development.
	Wednesday 16 May—Continuation of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subject will be the cost of living.
	Thursday 17 May—Conclusion of the debate on the Queen’s Speech. The subject will be jobs and growth.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 21 May will include:
	Monday 21 May—Remaining stages of the Local Government Finance Bill.
	Tuesday 22 May—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Financial Services Bill (Day 2), followed by Third Reading of the Civil Aviation Bill.
	Wednesday 23 May—Second Reading of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, followed by a European document relating to the proceeds of crime.
	Thursday 24 May—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 24 May will be:
	Thursday 24 May—Debate on the operations of the family courts.

Angela Eagle: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement and apologise for my slightly unfocused beginning; I was lost in admiration for the work that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) has done as Chair of the Backbench Business Committee and rather wondering whether, and hoping that, she would consider standing again.
	Following the brief announcement yesterday of the Government’s legislative programme, the Deputy Prime Minister said in a letter to his party activists that it showed that
	“Liberal Democrats are punching above their weight”.
	At last, we have an acknowledgement from them—that they are in the political lightweight division. After all, this is a party that was beaten at the polls last week by a man dressed as a penguin.
	The Deputy Prime Minister added in desperation that the Queen’s Speech
	“has a firm Liberal Democrat stamp on it”—
	and he was right. It had nothing to say on the economy; nothing to say on getting people back to work; nothing to help hard-pressed families. All that Liberal Democrats want to do is sit around and debate House of Lords
	reform. The Leader of the House has announced six days of debate on the Government's packed legislative programme. Will he find time for a debate about how the Liberal Democrats are punching above their weight?
	Will the Leader of the House find time also for the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) to participate in that debate? After all, he said of the Government last year:
	“We don’t know what we’re doing”
	after 2011, and
	“we’ve run out of ideas”.
	Will the Leader of the House coax the right hon. Gentleman out of whatever cupboard they have put him in and get him to the Chamber so that we can congratulate him on being correct?
	Before the Queen’s Speech the Conservative Chair of the Public Administration Committee said that the Government lacked a compelling vision. Today it is clear: the problem is not that they lack a compelling vision, but that they lack any vision at all. The Leader of the House was unable to find time for a debate on the Committee’s report before the Queen’s Speech. Will he now finally do so?
	While his economic plan is failing, the part-time Chancellor is focused on his other job of managing the Conservatives’ election strategy. As Thursday’s local elections showed, that is going very well. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the new Chipping Norton set of Labour councillors elected in the Prime Minister’s constituency last Thursday? They join more than 800 other new Labour councillors elected up and down the country.
	After last week’s polls, the Prime Minister said that he wanted to listen. Why does he not meet his new Labour councillors, who will be able to tell this out-of-touch Prime Minister what the electorate are really saying? He will not even have to ban photographs of that meeting. On that very point, we learned this week that the Prime Minister arranged to meet Rebekah Brooks at a point-to-point meeting so long as they were not seen together. Meanwhile, the Culture Secretary hides behind a tree so that members of the press do not spot him meeting James Murdoch. That sums up the Government—wrong choices, wrong priorities.
	Can the Leader of the House confirm that prior to appearances before the Leveson inquiry, Ministers still have to account for their actions to the House and that the ministerial code still covers them? Following yesterday’s Queen’s Speech, the Institute of Directors said that the Government were beginning to lose the confidence of UK plc, the Institute of Mechanical Engineers complained that there was no industrial strategy, and the British Chambers of Commerce wanted more support for jobs and growth. Even today’s edition of The Daily T elegraph asks, “Why was there no plan for growth?”
	Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement on the Government’s elusive plan for growth? Slashing employment rights is no substitute for a growth strategy. The Government’s disastrous economic policy has led to massive unemployment, growing inequality and a double-dip recession. The out-of-touch Chancellor thinks that the solution is a huge tax cut for millionaires. A Cabinet Minister says that the Government have no
	ideas, while a senior Back Bencher says that they have no vision. It is little wonder that, abandoning the No. 10 rose garden, the Prime Minister and his deputy went this week to a factory to relaunch the Government. It was a factory where big blue tractors pulled small yellow trailers. What an apt metaphor for this Government.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Fiscal incontinence undermines the support that we can offer our armed forces. Doing this in a disciplined way is not, as the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) would try to present in a rather sneering fashion, some sort of obsession with spreadsheets; it is about doing our job as politicians, which is to ensure that the support for our armed forces is there, is sustainable and can actually be delivered to them.

Philip Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for his question and assure him that we will take the decisions that need to be taken in the interests of the nation’s defence, however awkward or inconvenient. I will come to the House however many times I need to and make however many announcements I need to make to get the Department back on track. I want the MOD to stand tall among the Departments of State, with a normal relationship with the Treasury and with the centre of government and proper contingency arrangements in its budget so that the armed forces can be confident that the promises that are made to them will be delivered, unlike those of the previous Government.

Barry Sheerman: I missed the first two minutes of the Home Secretary’s speech, but I am keen to get into the debate because I have been outside talking about the dreadful case of criminals preying on children in Rochdale. My constituents do not really care what an agency is called; they want an effective mechanism. When I led a debate on child prostitution and the curse that we had across northern region, I pointed out that one of the central problems is the not-joined-up relationship between different police forces in Lancashire, Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire.

Theresa May: It is not the Government’s intention to require any change in the commercial model currently operated by communication service providers. The data that will be covered by the legislation—data that might not otherwise have been kept—will be required to be kept for only 12 months, however, after which time that data will have to be destroyed.

Theresa May: The coalition has done a great deal to defend civil liberties. We have abolished ID cards, cut back Government databases and limited pre-charge detention. We have shown that we are not going to throw away hard-won British freedoms, even when we have to take important decisions about national security, and our proposals on communications data are consistent
	with those values. However, I recognise that Members will want the chance properly to scrutinise our proposals, so the draft clauses will be put forward for careful pre-legislative scrutiny. Following that, proposals will be introduced at the earliest opportunity, and I hope I can count on the support of the Opposition when they are introduced.
	The strengthened safeguards we will put in place for access to communications data show that at the same time as we protect national security, we can also defend civil liberties. There is no contradiction between those two aims, so our justice and security Bill will both enhance national security and justice by ensuring that all relevant material can be considered in court cases, at the same time as modernising and enhancing parliamentary oversight of our security and intelligence agencies. The statutory framework for oversight of the agencies has not changed since before 9/11. During that time, the public profile and budgets of, and the operational demands on, the agencies have all increased significantly.
	The Government believe the time is now right to modernise the oversight regime to ensure that it is both effective and credible, so we will modernise the Intelligence and Security Committee and extend its remit. For the first time, the Committee will be given responsibility for the wider intelligence community. It will also be given broader powers to access information, it will have additional resources to carry out its tasks, and its status will be changed to bring it closer to Parliament. We will also broaden the remit of the intelligence services commissioner. These proposals represent a considerable increase in the powers of the bodies responsible for overseeing the intelligence community.
	The justice and security Bill will also introduce proposals to deal with the limitations of the current court rules which do not allow sensitive intelligence evidence to be heard in civil proceedings, even where it is of central relevance to the case. In future, any challenges brought against the Government will be able to be heard fully, with all relevant facts and information available to the court. No important information will have to be withheld for fear of jeopardising important intelligence-sharing relationships or endangering lives. Under these plans, closed material procedures will be available in the tiny number of civil cases where national security-sensitive material is centrally relevant, just as they currently are in some immigration, employment and family hearings. The final decision on whether a closed material procedure is needed will rest with the judge. As much of the case as possible will always be held in open court. This is a step forward for justice. It will mean that civil cases that are currently not heard will be heard, and that serious allegations made against the Government will be fully and independently investigated and scrutinised by the courts. It will also mean that cases the Government believe have no merit will no longer be settled for significant sums, but will be heard and judged by our courts.
	The Bill also seeks to protect our vital intelligence-sharing relationships by reforming the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which allows someone fighting a case outside the UK to apply to a British court for access to intelligence information held by us, and in some cases supplied by our allies. The Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction has
	been used no fewer than nine times in the last three years to seek the disclosure of secret intelligence that either belongs to the UK Government, or which our allies have shared with us. In such cases, the Government do not have the option of withdrawing from or settling these proceedings. Our inability to reassure our allies that we will uphold the confidential terms on which they share intelligence material with us has obvious and damaging consequences, so we will address the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction in the justice and security Bill.
	The Government’s justice and home affairs proposals will ensure that serious, organised and complex crime is tackled; punishments are strengthened; justice is swifter and more efficient; freedom of speech is protected; national security is maintained; and the oversight of those who keep us safe is modernised. It is a comprehensive reform package that will enhance public safety, improve justice and cut crime. While today is only the start of the debate, these are aims with which I hope the whole House will agree.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman knows that that figure does not actually reflect what happens in police forces across the country. Barely an hour ago, I spoke to police officers who told me that they are now having to deal with more bureaucracy, not less. They have to do all their own recording of crime and all their own collecting of statements, which previously used to be done by civilian support staff. Those police officers told me categorically that they are now spending less time out on the beat and having to deal with more bureaucracy than they were before. The police are becoming less visible, not more visible, as a result of this Government’s decisions.
	What then does the Queen’s Speech have to offer to cut crime or to improve public safety? The answer is: not much. The previous Queen’s Speech was bad enough: 17,000 suspected rapists were taken off the DNA database; 20% cuts were made in policing at the same time as £100 million could be found for elected police commissioners; counter-terrorism powers were watered down; and getting CCTV was made tougher. So what do the Government have to offer this time to make good the damage? The answer is: cameras in courts. I guess they had to put them somewhere, now that they are taking them away from the town centres and the housing estates.
	The Home Secretary did promise stronger oversight of the intelligence and security agencies. We will support that, and I hope that she goes far enough. She also said that she wants more closed material procedures—the devil will be in the detail on that. There is a problem with foreign intelligence, and I agree with her that there is a problem with the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction. The proposals that she set out in the Green Paper were not justified and went too far. I recognise from her remarks today that she has made some changes to those positions, but we will need to see the detail, reflect and give the matter consideration. She also talked about extending communication surveillance. Again, we will await the detail. Everyone wants the police to be able to keep up with new technology in the fight against terrorism, but no one wants the police or security agencies browsing personal e-mails or Facebook pages at will. I hope that we can have cross-party discussions on this. The Home
	Secretary will know that the practice of previous Home Secretaries has been to provide extensive briefing for the Opposition and for Select Committees, so we will wait to see what detail she is able to provide.

Yvette Cooper: As the Home Secretary will know, we have said that the scope of the Green Paper was too wide. We recognise that there is a problem for the security agencies and the way in which civil claims are made and material needs to be considered. However, proper safeguards need to be in place, as we have said. She also knows, as I have said this to her, that I am very willing to have further cross-party discussions with her about the detail. We have not yet seen what amendments she may have made to the Green Paper proposals and we will wait to see them and scrutinise them in detail. It is important that she should do that. On communications surveillance—I do not know whether she heard my points earlier, as she was conferring with her Front-Bench colleagues—it has been normal practice in the past for Home Secretaries to provide extensive briefing for the Opposition and the Select Committees. We will wait for that briefing and consider and scrutinise the detail as it is proposed.
	The Home Secretary has also proposed stronger community sentences. That sounds good, although we gather that the Bill will be published and debated in the House of Lords without any clauses on community sentences. We should also consider what is missing. There is nothing on equal marriage—not even a draft Bill—even though, as Minister for Women and Equalities, she made it clear that she was consulting not on whether but on how to introduce the changes. There is nothing on violence against women and nothing on antisocial behaviour, even though she promised more than two years ago that new action would be taken. There is nothing on gangs, even though after the riots the Government told us that that was their big priority and even though we know that gang injunctions need to be improved. There is nothing on problem families, even though the Government told us in the autumn that they were the priority, and there is nothing to protect core public policing or to stop neighbourhood patrols being contracted out to private companies such as G4S or KBR as the cuts bite.

Keith Vaz: It depends which chief constable we are talking about; I do not think that the chief constable of Gloucestershire, who recently announced that he is going, is the best person to call in the Minister’s defence. This is about ordinary police officers, not those who sit at the top of the tree. Very soon, ACPO will no longer be there, because the Minister is getting rid of it. He may pray it in aid, but we are talking about the effect on ordinary police officers. I do not want ordinary police officers to have to take second jobs to make ends meet. I do not want them to spend some of their time as private investigators, as some of them do. I do not want them to have to leave the police force to become private investigators; 60% of private investigators are former police officers. I want police officers to have a career, be well paid, and be compensated.
	I endorse the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) about the way in which SOCA operates internationally. What it does internationally is different from what it does in this country. Ever since I have chaired the Select Committee, I have felt that if the public give an organisation £500 million, we expect it to be able to deliver as far as seizures and disrupting organised crime are concerned.
	I never thought SOCA quite made it, in terms of giving the public value for money. However, on our recent visit to Colombia, I was deeply impressed by what SOCA does abroad. I know that it is to go into the NCA, but given that the President of Colombia, in a meeting with the Select Committee, spent the entire time praising the work of SOCA and what it is doing to stop drugs coming out of Colombia, we should consider branding for one moment, and whether we actually want to change SOCA’s name abroad, or keep it, just for these purposes. Many countries rate what SOCA is doing, and to give it a new name and branding may be a step too far.
	I will not deal with surveillance issues because I know that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Justice will speak on the subject, but I will talk about two more issues. One is immigration. The Government will deeply regret their decision to take away the right of appeal for family visits. I am looking round the Chamber. The hon. Members for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), for Croydon Central and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman)—I am sure that there are others, but I pick those because I know a bit about their constituencies —will have huge immigration case loads in their surgeries, as many Labour Members have. The fact is that taking away the right of appeal will hugely increase Members’ case loads. We are happy to do more work, but the fact is that we will send those people back to make further applications. The Minister for Immigration is not in the Chamber at the moment and other Ministers do not deal with immigration work, but the facts are very clear: 50% of the appeals against decisions to refuse family visits are won in the immigration tribunal, which means that decision making is not as good as it should be. If we take away the right of appeal, we will take away people’s only option to have their relatives come here to attend family occasions, funerals and weddings.
	That will be a big mistake by the Government. The previous Government were about to make the same mistake. I think that the proposal comes not from Ministers but from officials. I can recall talking with Charles Clarke about it—he happened to be watching a Norwich match at the time—when colleagues and I went to see him, and he took our point. I said, “Take away the right of appeal, and you will deny our citizens, people who live in this country, the chance to get their relatives here for their family occasions.”
	The Government will regret what they are doing. The Prime Minister addressed 1,000 people at the launch of Conservative Friends of India 10 days ago. I am glad that he did so—he made a very good speech—but he did not tell them about this proposal. Every single person attending that event will have a relative who wishes to come here to visit them and so will be inconvenienced by and feel distressed about what is proposed. We are putting pressure on the entry clearance officers, who themselves are having their numbers cut because of Government decisions. I ask Ministers please to look at this again. It is extremely important that they do so.
	The shadow Home Secretary spoke about Abu Qatada. The Home Secretary came out and said that a mistake was made—not in so many words, but she said that the date was wrong. She came to the House and was asked 12 times about it, and she came to the Home Affairs Committee and was asked by me six times about it.
	She said that she accepted unequivocal legal advice, so she should change her legal advisers. She has spent £1 million on external legal advisers on the Abu Qatada case. It is not as though there is an absence of Queen’s counsel; they are not all at the Leveson inquiry. My advice is to find someone else who knows about immigration law and pay them what they ask to be paid, but for goodness sake get some good legal advice. I do not blame Ministers for the mistake, and I do not except the Home Secretary to pick up a phone and find out when a deadline is, but I do expect her to get that legal advice, and if someone says they think it is wrong, even if it happens to be a BBC journalist, she should call her officials together and ask them to look at it again.
	My final point is not about home affairs but about an issue I have raised in nearly every Queen’s Speech debate in the 25 years I have been a Member of the House. It is something that happened 21 years ago—the closure of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International. In every Gracious Speech debate I have talked about the need to end the liquidation of BCCI. On 5 July 1991 the sixth-biggest bank in the world was closed down. Many of my constituents lost money in that bank, and I can remember going to see the then Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England with people such as the former leader of the Liberal Democrats and Mr Alex Salmond and many others to see what money there was for the people who had lost their money in BCCI. We were told that there would be no money left for them because the bank was empty and bankrupt. The Sheikh of Abu Dhabi was told, “Please don’t give us the money, because the bank is broke.”
	After 21 years, those people have now received 90% of their money back, thanks to the work of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. He was the first and only Secretary of State in 21 years to write directly to the liquidators to ask when the liquidation would be completed. I am pleased to say that shortly afterwards the liquidators fixed the final meeting, and on 17 May, after 21 years and £1 billion of liquidators’ fees for a £6 billion bank, BCCI will finally close and the creditors will have got 90% of their money back. This is the last time I shall mention BCCI in this House, certainly in a home affairs debate. I wish all those who have been involved in the campaign well and hope that we will learn the lessons from it: when a bank is in trouble and people are prepared to support it, as we have done subsequently with a number of other banks, we should stop and pause before closing it down and causing misery for so many thousands of people.

Tom Clarke: I am pleased that the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) is in his place, because I want to follow on from where he ended his speech. He referred to the discussions on the House of Lords. He knows that I have a high regard for him, but I was greatly surprised by his peroration, in which he appeared to chastise the Labour party, ignoring all the evidence, which I will come to in a minute or two, from the Joint Committee on the Draft House of Lords Reform Bill, the alternative report and the public debates that we have had. Although it pains me to say it, if he and his Lib Dem colleagues are worried, they ought to keep an eye on their leader, because the Joint Committee got the impression from his evidence to us that this was the most vital thing that was going on throughout the earth, and yet in the last few days his tone has changed considerably.
	I pay tribute to my colleagues on the Joint Committee, including the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) who is in his place. Many people worked extremely hard on that Committee and in preparing the alternative report. When we are told that difficulties are likely to be presented, I ask frankly—my views are not necessarily shared by others on the Joint Committee—why should they be? We had about 15 divisions in the course of our sittings. The talk about manifestos is not that relevant. The Conservatives said in their manifesto that they wanted a consensus. They certainly did not get it
	on the Joint Committee. When we took vote after vote, and when we listened to people giving evidence, what did we find? We found that the Government’s enthusiasm for the new Chamber—whatever it might be called—being elected is distinct from the views of other Conservatives in another place and here. The Government seem to fear the fact that a lot of their Members simply are not in favour of election, and that they might not carry even the very small Bill that they are putting before this House and another place.
	We were required to consider a draft Bill. When we look at that Bill and compare it with what was said in the Queen’s Speech, which talks about “the composition” of the House of Lords, I find a considerable dilution of the task the Joint Committee was asked to undertake. Reference is made to composition, but there is nothing about elections, nothing about a referendum, nothing about funding or spending, to which I shall return in a minute or two, nothing about the extremely important role of this House—but merely composition. It was almost as if the Joint Committee had never met at all.
	Let me put on the record where I am coming from on this issue. Lord Hunt, speaking for the Opposition in the other place said:
	“The Official Opposition support an elected House. However, that must not be at the expense of primacy of the Commons, nor must it threaten gridlock or detract from our role as an effective revising Chamber. Further, these changes should take place only with the…consent of the British people.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 May 2012; Vol. 736, c. 2100.]
	I entirely agree with that. If I mention more Members of the other place than I do of Members here, let it be said that I have been incredibly surprised by the fact that, although the other place is rightly considered not to be democratic in its present form, it spent two days debating this issue. The issue that ended up being in the Queen’s Speech, however, is but a little mouse in its reference to “composition”, so I think it fair to take the views of the other place into account as well as those of right hon. and hon. Members here.
	To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they stuck to their manifesto commitment to a 100% elected Second Chamber with no referendum—I did not agree with it, but that is where they stood—but we must accept that there are many views on this crucial issue, particularly when we have an unwritten constitution.
	The Joint Committee tried with great courage to obtain from the Government their estimate of what the costs would be, but we achieved no results at all. I tried to put it to the Prime Minister yesterday in the context of his support for the Queen’s Speech. Incidentally, I noted that his script made no reference whatever to the House of Lords; it came up only when he responded to interventions. This is the question I put to the Prime Minister yesterday:
	“Can he tell us today what costing has taken place on the proposal in the Queen’s Speech and will he share that with the House?”
	The Prime Minister replied:
	“Certainly. The cost of a stand-alone referendum would be significant and it is worth taking that into account.”—[Official Report, 9 May 2012; Vol. 545, c. 24.]
	If ever someone were to answer a question that was not put, that was it. Where are we as members of the Joint Committee and as those who supported the alternative report? The report was supported by Members of all
	parties—except, to be fair to them, as I want to be, the Lib Dems. Whatever our views—I have made mine clear—we cannot assess an issue as big as this one without looking at the likely costs. I highly commend the alternative report to right hon. and hon. Members. Those who prepared it were advised by Lord Lipsey that the changes in the draft Bill would amount to £177 million in the first year and £433 million by 2020.
	I do not remember a single person raising the issue of the House of Lords when I was canvassing before the recent local elections and, indeed, before the general election two years ago. People are far more worried about issues such as unemployment, the economy, energy charges and the attack on the health service. It is right for the House to regard those matters as having greater priority as we take our time to decide what will happen if there is indeed to be another Chamber.
	I referred earlier to the relationship between the two Houses as time goes on, and to the important question of primacy. I believe that, in a modern Britain, democratic representative government ought to mean that the House of Commons, elected as it is, retains its primacy. The Joint Committee decided that there was an unbridgeable gap, and I agreed with it. The more we listened to the evidence that we were given, the more I formed the opinion that this was as much a review of the House of Commons as a review of the House of Lords. I do not think that the issue should be dealt with in such a mean-minded way, through a mere reference to composition in the Queen’s Speech.
	Of course our Committee sought advice from the Government. We sought legal advice. In response to two of our requests, the Attorney-General refused to give any advice at all. I ask Members to answer a question honestly. Is this the way to go about introducing a major change?
	The Government, incidentally, had set up a Committee on the draft Bill, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister, promising that we would have a report by December 2010. What did we find? At the very mention of referendums and power, the Committee stopped meeting, so we did not even have the benefit of that. We are told that we should have confidence in the coalition and that it will deliver, but I have seen precious little evidence that that is the case.
	Because we did not have any advice from the Attorney-General, we relied on advice from people such as Lord Pannick and Lord Goldsmith, which clearly indicated that there was a strong contradiction between those who support election to the House of Lords, as I do, and the existing Parliament Act 1911. I believe that it was the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy) who reminded us that that Act is 101 years old. Even then, however, Erskine May was warning us that this Parliament—this House of Commons—would not retain its primacy if there were an element of election elsewhere. We really cannot proceed with these issues without clarifying that vital matter. It is at the core of all the differences that may exist. Others may be settled, but that one cannot be.
	Clause 2 of the draft Bill was criticised again and again, and was defended by only two people. The House will not be surprised to learn that they were the Deputy Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper), who is responsible for constitutional affairs. No one else
	supported clause 2, which was as big a shambles as the other elements of the Bill that the Government had presented to us for examination before coming up with the reference to composition in the Queen’s Speech.
	The Clegg Committee clearly failed, but that did not mean that we should neglect our duties, and we did not do so. We could not agree on a number of issues, but that is no surprise. I hope that if, a referendum is held and the British people have their say, we shall have a genuine, open debate that involves the people. I think that it ought to involve a body like the convention that we set up a number of years ago in preparation for the establishment of the Scottish Parliament. It was not just a small committee of politicians from both Houses, end of story; rather, it was a convention that consulted the entire population. There were elected people—local citizens, as well as representatives from community councils, business, the trade union movement and many other bodies and sectors. As a result, it came up with far better and more clearly worked out proposals for the Scottish Parliament than we have produced for what might be our new second Chamber.
	The issue of a mechanism for deadlock—what happens if neither House agrees once there is an element of election in the other House—must be addressed. Also, the report, which I signed, recommends that there should be 12 bishops from the Anglican Church, and I respect the standing of that Church and its link with Parliament. However, in our modern society we must also consider people of other faiths, and if we have the convention that the alternative report recommended—and which I support—that will emerge.
	I might have been a bit harder on the Liberal Democrats than I normally am, but I have to say to them—[Interruption.] Wait for what’s coming next. I have to say to them that if they truly believe that this Prime Minister is going to deliver the policies they had in their election manifesto, they have another thought coming. To put it more mildly, the Deputy Prime Minister said that his party was punching above its weight, but I have to say to the Liberal Democrats, “Be careful. You were invited to a rose garden; along the way lies the garden path.”

Andrea Leadsom: Yes. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments and I am very aware of the programme he mentions. There are many other programmes, and they all have a valid role to play. There is no one-size-fits-all approach. Indeed, I want to talk about a charity that I have been involved with for 12 years now—the Oxford Parent Infant Project, which has seven satellites around Oxfordshire. It works with families and their babies to improve the quality of attachment. OXPIP has had astonishing results over those 12 years. In 2009, I gave up my role as the chairman of OXPIP to fight my general election campaign, but I always intended that if I was fortunate enough to be elected to Parliament, I would work to build a Northamptonshire Parent Infant Partnership, which I have now done. That partnership was launched six months ago and we are trying to build a service that, like OXPIP, provides psychotherapeutic support for families who are struggling to bond with their babies.
	What I really want is for this approach to be established through children’s centres. We do not need more overheads or more buildings. I am a co-chair of the all-party group on Sure Start children’s centres and it has become apparent from our recent inquiry into the impact of the un-ring-fencing of the early intervention grant that it is not the case that children’s centres are closing—far from it. Directors of children’s services are very committed to support for the youngest. What I have found astonishing from that inquiry is the fact that there is no common shared understanding of best practice in children’s centres. To say that they are about getting children school-ready is to miss the point completely. School-readiness should be a result of the earliest relationship if it is sound and solid. That is where we need to focus our efforts.
	I would like to see parent-infant partnerships working in every local authority in conjunction with the children’s centres and as part of those teams—working with health visitors, midwives and social workers as a point of referral. Midwives and social workers have a very full role and enormous lists of clients or patients to see. Some midwives look after up to 600 families and it is ridiculous to assume that they can see mum and sort out whether she has a safe and secure relationship with her baby as well as treat those mothers and babies who do not have such a relationship. That simply is not going to happen. Even the Government’s excellent efforts to produce far more health visitors will not provide a complete solution to this problem. Health visitors need somewhere to refer cases—a specialist team such as a parent-infant partnership that can provide the psychotherapeutic support for that mother and baby, or father and baby or adoptive parents and baby to help them to form that early bond.
	A week tomorrow, the Northamptonshire Parent Infant Project is having a one-day conference in my constituency to talk about the incredible work that can be done through early-years intervention to change our society for the better. This is not just about human happiness, although that is what drives me—the potential for all those babies to be so much better—but is about the potential financial savings for our society. If we had one generation in which the vast majority of babies were securely attached by the age of five, instead of 40% not being securely attached by that age, we would radically reduce the cost to our mental health services, our prison services, our police and our social services, which are currently trying to pick up the pieces of failed early attachment.
	At the conference, we will be making the case that early-years intervention and spending money in the very earliest years when babies are under two is a really good way to save money much further down the line. Research from the States suggests that a dollar spent when a baby is under two saves $19 further down the line. There is a huge argument for looking seriously at that type of service, from both a financial and a moral point of view.

Susan Elan Jones: I would like to deal now with the issue of what is legally defined as “dangerous driving”—that is, where a court of law can prove that the driving was extremely negligent, not just bad or careless. Sentences here, too, can also be very short in cases where victims are seriously injured, even to the extent of being paralysed, but not actually killed. The maximum sentence for that crime is also two years, and of course most people are given much shorter sentences. I believe that the current average is about 11 months. Eleven months for wrecking someone’s life through reckless criminal actions? There seems to be to be very little justice in that. Sentences for assault are longer, even when the act is not premeditated. Why should a sentence be so short when the injury was caused by a car rather than a weapon? I sincerely urge the Government to consider tightening the law in that regard. I commend their introduction of new drug-driving laws, but I believe that they must be followed by proper
	laws to deal with other serious driving crimes. That is what my constituents want, and I hope that the Government will include such measures in their Bill.
	I have done all that I can in my speech to be positive about a change in the law that I greatly welcome, for, as we know, it matters precious little whether someone is Labour, Tory, Liberal Democrat or a non-voter if that person is mown down by a vehicle steered by someone who is high on drugs. In welcoming that change, however, I must raise a question about the implementation of the policy, and especially about how it will affect areas such as mine in north Wales which are geographically spread out. Laws on paper mean nothing if there are unmanageable cuts involving the people who are needed to enforce them. Our north Wales police force faces 20% budget cuts, which means that by 2015 it will have to lose 179 front-line officers—the very people who will be needed to carry out roadside drug tests.
	The cuts will also affect so-called “back-room” officers and other staff. They are not people who are drafted in to make cups of coffee or count paper clips; they are people working in forensics and labs, the very people who will be needed to analyse and process the “drugalyser” results which will be vital to gaining convictions. Without those people, the Government’s own excellent new law is likely to fail in its day-to-day implementation.
	Whatever the differences between Members’ ideological and political viewpoints, I believe that Ministers are sincere when they tell us that they believe in localism. I offer a challenge to the Government. If they are prepared to offer referendums to people on whether they want Mayors, why on earth are police and crime commissioners being foisted on us whether we want them or not? There have been various estimates of the cost of introducing them, including an estimate of £136 million over 10 years, and it is likely that elected officials overseeing forces in England and Wales outside London will be paid hefty salaries. Given that police forces face cuts of between 14% and 20%, how in heaven’s name does that policy make sense? No wonder Mr Rob Garnham, chairman of the Association of Police Authorities and himself a Conservative councillor, described it as the
	“wrong policy at the wrong time”.
	I have no doubt that the Government’s new and welcome policy on drug-driving will not be helped one jot by cuts in the number of trained police officers while police commissioners are foisted on us whether we want them or not.
	Let me end by making three points. First, let me praise the Government for rightly introducing a new law on drug-driving; secondly, let me request them to consider introducing tougher laws on other driving offences; and thirdly, let me ask them to remember the words of one previous Conservative Prime Minister—I am sure that I need not remind them who it was—who famously said:
	“Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.”
	Today, as we have seen outside and heard in the House, our policemen and policewomen also need the tools and the resources, so that they can get on with their unique and essential task of tackling crime.

Mary Macleod: Because another of the Home Secretary’s roles is as Minister for Women and Equalities and because the Minister for Equalities, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone), is sitting on the Front Bench now, I want to focus my few words about the Gracious Speech on the contribution that women can make to our economy. The first line of the speech states:
	“My Government’s legislative programme will focus on economic growth, justice and constitutional reform.”
	I shall raise some points about the important role women can play in helping us to achieve economic growth.
	Yesterday’s speech was, of course, delivered by a woman who has been an outstanding role model in this country and across the world, and it is wonderful to be celebrating her diamond jubilee this year. As I sat in the House of Lords Gallery listening to Her Majesty, I thought of another great female: Baroness Ritchie of Brompton, who passed away on 24 April. She did so much for women—especially in respect of Conservative candidates and helping more women achieve their potential in the House of Commons. As only 22% of current MPs are women, we clearly still need to do more.
	Female entrepreneurs can certainly help to create economic growth. In the UK, 150,000 more start-ups would be created every year if women were to start businesses at the same rate as men do. If women here in the UK were to set up businesses at the same rate as women in the US, there would be approximately 600,000 more businesses, contributing about £42 billion extra to the economy. This is an important issue, therefore.
	Some steps have already been taken. A women’s business council has been established, which advises the Government on how to boost the role women play in the economy. Funding has been announced for 5,000 female business mentors. The mentoring portal, mentorsme.co.uk, has been launched, providing a single point of contact for both those seeking mentoring and those who want to be mentors—and I would encourage anyone with business skills to become a mentor. There is also a £2-million fund supporting female entrepreneurs to set up in rural areas, under the rural growth networks scheme.
	More can be done, however. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) spoke powerfully about the early development of children, and she also made a plea for us to scrap regulation on micro-businesses employing between one and three people. We must encourage new businesses and help them develop. The Federation of Small Businesses in my area recently talked about the national insurance holiday, a great initiative that gives a national insurance holiday of up to £5,000 in respect of a firm’s first 10 employees. It does not apply in London at present, but if it were to do so, that would greatly help my constituents. Also, it only covers the first year, and extending it to a second year would make a great difference to small businesses.
	We must also further encourage enterprise education in schools and universities, so that many more young people, especially young women, consider the option of starting up a business. We must consider the child care options available to self-employed women, too, so they can run their business while also bringing up their
	children. Some women who sit on boards in the City told me recently that they would very much like to be female business angels, helping companies set up by women and also helping women create new enterprises.
	Much more can be done for enterprise and to encourage women to become entrepreneurs. This month in my constituency we are having an enterprise event. All the women in the Hounslow area of the constituency have been invited to come along and talk with female entrepreneurs. We have some fabulous female-entrepreneur role models, and we must ensure that they can help inspire the next generation of entrepreneurs. Organisations including banks, StartUp Britain and chambers of commerce also have a role to play in this regard.
	The second issue I would like to touch on is how women in the boardroom can make a difference to economic growth. We still have a lot of work to do here, but some progress has been made. This is an important issue, given the huge potential in having women at senior levels in business; we do not want to waste that talent, which could be contributing at such levels. Studies by McKinsey and others show the business benefits of having a more gender-balanced board. Companies with greater gender diversity significantly outperform their sector in return on equity, operating profits and stock price growth, not to mention increased quality of decision making and corporate governance. That is especially true where a board has more than three women members.
	The work of Lord Davies and his committee has given this issue much more visibility in the City and elsewhere. Now, 15.6% of FTSE 100 companies and 9.6% of FTSE 250 companies have women board members. As we can see, there is still some way to go. We have set the FTSE 100 companies a target to increase that figure to 25% by 2015; changed the UK corporate governance code, requiring companies to be more transparent and to report on their policy for boardroom diversity; and encouraged head-hunters to adhere to a voluntary code of conduct.
	We need to get more women into the boardroom, and more work needs to be done to develop the business case and to persuade the FTSE 350 companies of the benefits of gender diversity in the boardroom. We need to encourage chief executives and chairmen to act as ambassadors for change, and to meet “board-level” women who are ready to take up such positions. We need to identify priority companies on which to focus in increasing the number of women on boards, and to consider how best to increase the number of women in executive as well as non-executive board positions. There has been an increase in the latter, but not so much in the former. We need to look at every single level of the organisation in question to see what it is doing to encourage and promote women at all levels. We also have a role to play in monitoring and promoting examples of best practice. Careers advice is really important throughout women’s lives—not just when they are at school or leaving college or university—so that they have the confidence and ability to take up those critical positions.
	There are other initiatives in the Queen’s Speech to help women. Flexible leave will help people to fulfil their potential and will provide support for families. Both parents can share the parenting responsibility and
	balance work and family commitments. Flexible leave will be really important in the long term and will help to make a real difference in getting women into senior positions in organisations.
	The Queen’s Speech also refers to the modernising of adult social care. A lot of work is being done on the role of carers, who do an incredible job and do not get thanked enough for what they do. Often, they are elderly people. Given that we have an ageing population, this issue is becoming increasingly important, and I am very pleased that the Queen’s Speech addresses it.
	Finally, the Queen’s Speech refers to the Government’s plan to spend 0.7% of gross national income as official development assistance from 2013. I congratulate the Government on the work that has been done on international development, but I want to encourage them to go further on micro-financing. The MicroLoan Foundation, a Chiswick-based charity that supports African women through micro-financing, has had 99% of such loans repaid. This is a great way to look at the longer-term economic sustainability and development of these countries, by supporting women and others, and helping them to get a great start in life.
	I began by talking about the Queen and I will also end by discussing Her Majesty, because in the Queen’s Speech we also talked about reform of the rules governing succession to the Crown. I was pleased about that, because it is long overdue and we have wonderful examples among our monarchs. Queen Victoria was on the throne for 63 years and our current Queen is about to celebrate her diamond jubilee.

Tom Brake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), although I have to say that I must have listened to a different Queen’s Speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) did an excellent job of setting out exactly what is in the Queen’s speech for business. Let me remind the hon. Gentleman that it contains provisions on reform of the banks, which we need to ensure stability, on cutting red tape, on the Green investment bank, and on allowing renewable development to continue. I should also point out that the Government have already introduced measures on youth unemployment through the youth contract and apprenticeships, so they are not sitting on their hands doing nothing as he was suggesting.
	I want to focus on the proposals relating to home affairs and justice issues. First, however, let me say a couple of things about House of Lords reform, to which all parties made a commitment in their manifestos. I assume that all of them are unhappy with a scenario in which we have 92 hereditary peers and peers who are appointed by party leaders making decisions about our legislation. I hope, therefore, that all Members will want to facilitate a process that enables us to come to a rapid conclusion on this and that these proceedings will not be delayed as a result of actions by Liberal Democrat Members.

Mark Hendrick: This Queen’s Speech is a joke, but not a very funny one. Thankfully, we all know that the Queen did not write it, although she had the unpleasant task of having to read it out yesterday in the House of Lords.
	I will say a little about policing in Lancashire. As many people will know, Lancashire has the best police force in the country—it has been independently assessed as the best of the 43 police forces in England and Wales. The right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is no longer in his place but has been replaced by one of his Lib Dem ministerial colleagues, now the only Lib Dem Member in the Chamber, which shows what respect the Lib Dems have for the coalition speech that the Queen delivered. If we look at the police force in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, we will see that it will lose 1,486 police officers, or 1,907 police staff overall, including front-line officers, so I was quite surprised that the first thing he talked about in his speech was House of Lords reform. Given the fact that his constituents are losing so many police officers, I am sure that they will be horrified that their parliamentary spokesperson is putting House of Lords reform at the top of his agenda. That just shows how out of touch the Liberal Democrats are. When I go into my local pub or club, my steward and my constituents do not come up to me and say, “What we really need, Mark, is House of Lords reform.” They are talking about crime on the streets, antisocial behaviour and the day-to-day problems they have to deal with.
	In talking of day-to-day problems that people have to deal with, and why we need the police to deal with them, I should point out that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) is losing only 65 front-line officers in his constituency. I am sure that in leafy Cambridgeshire the public will not miss 65 police officers, but they will miss 550 police officers in my constituency, and they will miss almost 1,500 police officers in Carshalton and Wallington. I know that the Minister’s constituency has a bit of trouble now and then when Huntingdon Life Sciences is attacked and a few extra police officers have to be drafted in, but the seriousness of these cuts is lost on some Government Members.
	The hon. Member for Croydon Central (Gavin Barwell) says that Opposition Members accuse the Government of not being sympathetic to the lives that people face or to the victims of crime. I am sure that they are sympathetic, but we are talking about crime on a far bigger scale in many of our inner cities and in many parts of the country. That needs far bigger and more effective police forces that have to be able to deal with it.
	We know that things are getting bad when the police themselves take to the streets to go on marches. There is
	a demonstration today in which thousands and thousands of police officers have descended on London, including officers from my constabulary in Lancashire, to protest about the 20% cuts in policing. Members of this House, as well as families and communities up and down the country, will be supporting them.
	Fairly recently I met representatives of the Lancashire Police Federation, and they reminded me of a meeting I had with them four or five years ago, when Jacqui Smith was Home Secretary and they complained about changes to their working arrangements and pensions that took place under the previous Labour Government. When I met them a couple of months ago over a very nice lunch in Preston, they said, “Bring back Jacqui Smith”, but I am afraid that they do not have that option at the moment. What they are left with is a Home Secretary who basically does not give a toss—[ Interruption. ]

Charles Kennedy: It takes a lot for the hon. Gentleman, whom I like and admire very much from our European days, to provoke me, but he is accusing the Government of putting forward something that was in the coalition agreement, in our respective party manifestos and in the manifesto on which he stood when he was elected to the House last time around. He asks, “Why now?” It is not as if this debate has suddenly popped up in the last six weeks or six months, or in the couple of years since the coalition was formed; it has been going on for more than a century. Is the position of the Labour party not just complete emergent opportunism—“Make us virtuous, oh Lord, but not yet.”?

Jonathan Djanogly: As I said, ASBOs are proving to have been ineffective and overly bureaucratic, and we are going to replace them with an order that is simpler to use and that works better. May I congratulate the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) on his support for police and crime commissioners? Although I wish him well in his campaign to be one, may I say that this is somewhat of a volte face from his position when Labour was in government?

Jonathan Djanogly: I think that is exactly what I said. If I did not, I am happy to reaffirm it.
	The community trigger will empower victims and communities to demand that agencies take action against persistent antisocial behaviour problems. The Government will shortly set out our formal response to the consultation and our new powers, which will put victims and communities at the heart of agencies’ response to this problem.
	The Bill dealing with families seeks to ensure that we tackle the root causes of delay in care cases as part of a wider package of reform that was set out in the family justice review. I am grateful for the interventions of my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and for Harrow East in support of the Government’s intention to tackle the delay in care proceedings. I am also grateful to the right hon. Member for Leicester East for his support of the Government’s intention to legislate on a target of six months in care cases.
	Reforms to the use of experts in family courts—on both the number and quality—have been rightly raised by Chair of the Justice Committee. Proposed amendments to the family procedure rules and practice direction on experts were submitted to the family procedure rules committee in April. These amendments seek to ensure that expert evidence is commissioned only where necessary—this, in turn, will save time in proceedings.
	On the quality of experts, Ministry of Justice officials have spoken to health regulators on developing minimum standards, and this will be an important area for my Department to improve.

David Mowat: I thank the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice) for the work done so far within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on this difficult issue, the future of the Arpley landfill tip. I am also grateful to his noble colleague, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, with whom I met recently to discuss some of the issues that continue to prevail.
	I wish to make a number of specific points about the Arpley site before making some general remarks about UK landfill policy within the context of the EU. It continues to be a disappointment that we fail to emulate those more enlightened countries that have, to all intents and purposes, eradicated the need for landfill sites altogether.
	By way of background, Arpley tip is situated very close to the centre of Warrington. The site is huge, covering some 400 acres, and is currently serviced by up to 250 20-tonne lorries every day—that is 500 separate journeys. Up to 10,000 residents live within a square mile of the site and many thousands more are impacted on by the lorries, which wind their way through residential streets to get to the site. The current licence expires in 2013, after nearly three decades, and the operators, WRG—Waste Recycling Group—have submitted an application to continue operations until 2025, a further 12 years.
	Not content with having put a landfill site in the middle of a rapidly growing town, the town’s planners decided in their wisdom to build a new housing estate, Saxon Park, less than a quarter of a mile from the entrance to the site. Indeed, the new estate shares an access road with the lorries that move in and out every day. From talking to the residents who bought the houses, it would appear that many of them received verbal assurances that the site would be closed by 2013, which formed part of their decision to buy. In summary, there are two distinct problems with the site and I shall address them both. The first is the logistical disruption caused throughout Warrington by the 500 daily road movements through residential areas to get to the site. The second is the very existence of such a site at such a location.
	I will consider the road issue first. The site’s central location means that all the waste brought into the estate must be driven through urban areas. Although Warrington is relatively well served by motorways, Arpley is not and trucks leaving the M62 have to travel through built-up residential suburbs for several miles. The site has a single access road, which is connected to another local road, the Old Liverpool road, that is simply not designed to take such a large volume of traffic at such a velocity, yet all vehicles entering the site must travel along it before turning into the access route. The Victorian-era houses are set quite close to the road and are vulnerable to vibrations. Several have suffered structural damage.
	To have to put up with such problems during normal daytime hours is bad enough, but despite a ban on vehicles entering the site before 8 am, many lorries enter
	the access road well before 7 am and we have seen photographs of parked-up trucks taken as early as 6.45 am. Given that the site operates on a Saturday, that means that residents in the Sankey Bridges area have their sleep patterns disturbed six out of seven days every week as well as having to endure all the dirt, flies and smells associated with a landfill site of this size. In fairness, the operator, WRG, has recognised the problem of unco-ordinated road movements and has proposed a new one-way system for trucks. However, even if that can be properly enforced, it brings additional problems because although those on the busiest part of the route will get some relief, many others will be blighted more than they were previously. It is a question of waking up Peter so that Paul can have a lie-in.
	The real solution would be for WRG to use either rail or the ship canal to get the waste to its destination. Planning permission exists for a rail head on the site, but the site operator consistently refuses to make use of it, arguing that its suppliers do not have the facilities to transport waste in that manner. That is a circular argument because suppliers will not invest if they know that there are no reciprocal receiving facilities. A further solution could be to make use of the new facilities provided by port Warrington and the ship canal, although that would take longer to put into place. The reluctance of the site operator to entertain either of those solutions is disappointing and unacceptable.
	The real issue at stake concerns the site itself, not just these logistical considerations. It simply cannot be right that a large district is blighted in this way given that from 2013 none of Warrington’s waste will go to landfill either in Arpley or anywhere else. I will return to that point later. First, I want to talk about a development that will exacerbate this issue. WRG proposes to reduce the overall footprint of the site, keeping it away from the end nearest to Saxon Park and stacking the waste higher. Obviously, that is good in that it keeps the waste away from houses, but WRG will gain because such stacking will increase the pressure and result in more landfill gas being produced.
	Why does the stacking matter? It matters because previous safety concerns regarding the site will be exacerbated by such major restructuring works. At some point in the mid-1990s, several hundred cattle carcases that were either infected or believed to be infected with bovine spongiform encephalopathy were dumped at Arpley—in many cases illegally. It now appears that the current site operator has no idea where those carcases were buried or what their condition is. No definitive research exists on the potential for prions from such carcases to contaminate soil and groundwater, but the best scientific advice is that human exposure to such carcases should be kept to a minimum. Indeed, the Government’s own adviser, Professor Smith, the chair of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, recently expressed disquiet about the safety of landfill sites that might have been contaminated in that way. In addition to the risks from animal carcases, Arpley produces other dioxins and poisons such as mercury. As was confirmed in a letter from the Environment Agency in March 2011, no emissions limits for those dioxins and poisons exist, which is concerning. Neither the status quo nor the stacking proposal that could make it worse are acceptable.
	I want to talk about landfill policy more generally because an overall solution to this issue will be realised only when we markedly reduce the amount of landfill in the UK. Our track record in the UK is very weak. We send 50% of our waste to landfill, whereas the figure in Germany is 3%, in Holland it is 5%, in Sweden it is 5% and in Denmark it is 5%. Even France, which is a relatively poor performer, sends only 30% of its waste to landfill. Why do all those countries outperform us? First, let me make it clear that it is not because they recycle more—at least not principally so. Under successive Governments, we have increased the amount we recycle from 11% to about 45%. Even Germany recycles only about 55%. No, we are unique in western Europe in utilising so little of our waste to generate energy either from combustion or from anaerobic digestion.
	The energy that could be produced in that way is local and relatively green. An oft-quoted example is Denmark in which every new housing estate has combined heat and power so that residents use their own waste to provide their own energy. Government Ministers talk about the hierarchy of waste with recycling being best, energy from waste being next and landfill being worst, but only the first part of that hierarchy is seriously attempted in the UK. I believe the problem is partly that some elements of the environment lobby, including Friends of the Earth, appear to believe that combustion is as bad as landfill. They are wrong to make the perfect the enemy of the good, and if they want to see how wrong they are, let them come to Arpley and see the landfill for themselves.
	I make it clear to the Minister that this is not a plea for an incinerator in my constituency; nor am I trying to claim that incineration is more desirable than recycling. What I am saying is that burning waste and harnessing the energy is infinitely preferable to putting it into big holes in the ground. The fact remains that best-practice countries such as Germany recycle more and combust more than the UK, and that must be the way forward.
	A recent report produced by the North West Regional Technical Advisory Body on Waste concluded that in 2008 waste from Warrington represented less than 10% of the waste sent to Arpley. A staggering 90% comes from outside the borough. I quote from the report:
	“Warrington remains an anomaly, accepting waste that is vastly disproportionate to its own arisings.”
	Furthermore, from next year even that tiny percentage will cease. The site will only receive waste from other parts of the north-west of the UK, mainly Liverpool and Manchester. In summary, despite Warrington’s managing to reduce the amount of waste it sends to landfill, we will be punished because neighbouring authorities have failed to do the same.
	At one level, I am very encouraged by the new provisions in the Localism Act 2011, which I believe will introduce a new duty for local authorities to co-operate with regard to waste. I look forward to seeing how it can alleviate the issue.
	I thank the Minister for listening patiently on a Thursday night with a one-line Whip. My constituents and I will be grateful for any words of support he can offer us. We shall be interested to hear what he has to say about four specific issues. If there are points that he cannot address today, perhaps he could respond to us in writing.
	First, there is a hierarchy of waste—recycling is better than incineration and incineration is better than landfill—yet progress from landfill appears painfully slow. Could the Minister update us on his targets and progress? In particular, what more can the Government do to ensure that we begin to emulate the best in Europe in terms of anaerobic digestion and energy from waste—both in community-based and larger installations?
	Secondly, given the general and clear direction of the Localism Act, can the Minister give an indication of what that might mean to a town where councillors of all parties are opposed to the granting of a new licence? If localism is to be meaningful on the ground, that must be a significant consideration in any planning appeal.
	Thirdly, given that from 2013 Warrington itself will send no waste to landfill, how will that consideration be factored into the planning appeal process? We talk about the duty to co-operate, so surely that must be relevant. A town that produces no landfill waste should not be a dustbin for others.
	Fourthly, will the Minister give me an assurance that the Environment Agency will be proactive on Arpley and satisfy itself that there is monitoring of the cattle carcases and of potential BSE issues? Furthermore, will he ensure that mercury and dioxin levels are monitored properly and that any risks are dealt with fast? In particular, can he give an assurance that a new licence will not be issued unless such checks are stringently and explicitly made?
	Finally, I invite the Minister to visit the site with me and to meet some of the 10,000 residents affected by it. It cannot be right that in the 21st century a 400-acre site of that type is located so close to so many people who just want to live their lives. Enough is enough.

James Paice: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) on obtaining the debate. I gather that he was supposed to be having a debate in Westminster Hall on the Arpley landfill site but lost the opportunity when the House prorogued. I am pleased to have the chance to respond to the serious points he has made, and to recognise how diligently he has represented the interests of his constituents, including as he rightly said, holding a meeting with my noble Friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. In regard to my hon. Friend’s invitation to me to visit Arpley, I am sure that I would thoroughly enjoy it, but I think I must defer to my noble Friend, who is the responsible Minister, as my hon. Friend well knows. That would be more appropriate, although there may be issues of propriety, given that the application is under consideration.
	As my hon. Friend may appreciate, I may fail to respond to some of the points that he has raised; I certainly cannot pass judgment on the relative merits of the proposals made by WRG because, as he obviously is aware, the proposals are largely a matter for the relevant planning authority—in this case Warrington borough council—and they must be based on the merits of the application. They are also, as my hon. Friend said, matters for the Environment Agency, which regulates the operations at Arpley landfill through an environmental permit granted to the operator. The decisions made by
	planning authorities and the Environment Agency are also potentially open to appeal by the applicant. It is therefore important that Ministers, both in the Department for Communities and Local Government and DEFRA, remain impartial in case they are called upon at a later stage in an appellate role.
	I also emphasise to my hon. Friend that it is the planning permission that is due to expire in 2013. The licence that he mentioned is, in fact, an environmental permit and that will not expire. Environmental legislation ensures that once granted, operators cannot rid themselves of their obligation to manage the site, so permits remain in force until they are surrendered and sites are returned to a satisfactory state. However, it is likely that the planning application, if granted, would require WRG to apply for a variation to its existing permit to ensure that any risks are reassessed and that appropriate measures are put in place to mitigate that risk.
	I fully recognise the concerns, expressed by my hon. Friend, of those living very close to the Arpley landfill site and who may be faced with the prospect of a 12-year extension to the operations there. I am sure that my constituents would have very similar views—and yours, too, Mr Deputy Speaker. Residents living near the site—particularly those living in new housing developments built in the expectation that the site was nearing the end of its life—will perfectly naturally and understandably worry about the continued potential problems and the nuisance from traffic movements, noise, odour and so on from tipping, although I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend refer to the applicant’s proposals to alter traffic movements.
	Decisions about the grant of planning permission are always in the first instance a matter for the relevant local authority, acting in accordance with national planning policy. It is during the planning process that concerns, many of which my hon. Friend has expressed, such as the height and the contouring of the site, should be considered, as well as issues such as the routing of traffic, the positioning of site entrances from the public highway and the opportunities for alternative transport by road and rail.
	The Environment Agency is charged, along with other bodies, to protect human health and the environment, not just during the operation of the site but also for many years after the site closes. Modern-day landfill sites are subject to stringent technical standards to provide long-term containment of pollutants. Pollution control monitoring of such things as leachate—contaminated water on the site—and the capture and treatment of landfill gas produced from the breakdown of biodegradable waste are all part of that. Sites will remain regulated by the agency after final closure to ensure that the pollution control systems remain operational for the long-term aftercare period needed for landfill sites.
	Tipping at landfills is carried out to achieve optimum waste densities in a site, so that its slopes are stable and encourage even settlement of the contours over time. Many factors, such the nature of the waste and the moisture content, determine the rate of landfill gas production. It is not just the issue of pressure, which my hon. Friend mentioned. It is important to capture and treat landfill gas—first, because it reduces the harmful
	greenhouse gas emissions of methane, and secondly, because it is a form of energy recovery from waste that can be utilised.
	As my hon. Friend rightly said, the proposed restructuring of the site would involve over-tipping of some areas previously tipped and completed, but contrary to my his understanding, we understand that this would definitely not involve disturbance of the Birchwood area where the carcases of cattle suspected of having BSE were deposited under direction from the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. If there was such a prospect, clearly the Environment Agency would have to consult partner agencies, such as the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, in assessing any risk from the disposal of suspected BSE cattle in the early 1990s.
	The Government consider waste planning authorities to be best placed to create and to deliver waste management strategies for their areas. That means making sure that waste plans inform and are informed by relevant documents, such as the municipal waste management strategy, as well as by the relevant waste collection and disposal authorities working together—and demonstrating how they have done so under the duty to co-operate provisions of the Localism Act 2011—so as to provide effective and sustainable cross-boundary arrangements to meet their needs.
	My hon. Friend challenged the Government’s record on landfill, but I assure him that we have been reducing landfill for some time. The number of operational landfill sites in England and Wales has fallen from more than 2,000 when the landfill directive was implemented in 2002 to fewer than 500 now. The amount of waste being landfilled has continued to fall year on year since 2002-03 and is now about 45% lower than a decade ago. We are already meeting our 2013 target to reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill. As my hon. Friend rightly said, considerably reduced landfilling helps to explain why many of the landfill sites that remain in operation are not being completed and restored within the time scales originally envisaged, or, as in the present case, are seeking extensions to their period of operation.
	Landfill should be the waste management option of last resort and be used only for wastes for which there is no alternative use. The measures outlined in our “Review of Waste Policy in England”, published last June, will play a significant role in pushing wastes up the hierarchy and away from landfill by encouraging the right infrastructure, markets and culture to enable us to treat waste more fully as a resource. I have often said that one man’s waste is another man’s raw material.
	Prevention also has a great part to play, and the amount of waste produced is 6% lower than in 2006. The landfill tax—£64 per tonne now, rising to £80 per tonne in 2014-15—remains a key driver to divert waste from landfill, but we want to do better than just diverting waste. We can be more optimistic about recycling—according to the latest figures, we recycle 42.5% of waste. We should also be using a range of alternative methods, including, as my hon. Friend rightly emphasised, energy from waste and anaerobic digestion, adopting the range of options that work best locally—although, as I think he implied, we should not underestimate local opposition to power from waste or anaerobic digestion plants. I have had to deal with both in my constituency.
	Even with that push, however, it would remain likely that some waste that could be put to better use would end up in landfill. The introduction of additional restrictions may therefore be warranted to achieve our ultimate aim. As a starting point, we will consult later this year on whether to introduce a restriction on the landfilling of wood waste, with the aim of diverting the still substantial tonnages that end up in landfill to better uses up the waste hierarchy, and delivering clear environmental benefits. I cannot understand why people pour wood into landfill sites.